Obama increased the debt more than Reagan and George W.....Myth and BS

The biggest contributors to the total federal debt, by far, are Republicans, starting with President Ronald Reagan, who doubled the debt during his eight years, from about $1.6 trillion to over $3.0 trillion, and George H.W. Bush, who added another $1.5 trillion in just four years, before George W. added nearly $5 trillion.

In fact, over his eight-year reign, George W. watched the total deficit go from about $5.7 trillion to $10.625 trillion, an increase of almost $5 trillion! And, in his last full fiscal year (2007/2008), which ended September 30, 2008, there was an increase of almost $1 trillion ($0.962 trillion) for just one year!

When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.626 trillion. As of the end of September, which is the end of a 2008/2009 federal fiscal year, the debt was $11.776 trillion, or an increase of about $1.15 trillion. Before President Obama took office, about $500 billion already had been spent in the 2008/2009 federal fiscal year…by the no-contest winner of the federal-deficit Presidents: George W. Bush.

Wrong. The shitty economy Bush inherited was shitty well before his tax cuts. The shitty economy during the Obama administration has endured through every heroic effort of our dear leader and shows little sign of getting back to GWBush levels, much less the prosperity of the 80s and 90s.

Summation:

Republican inherits a surplus and a booming economy from a Democrat. Runs it into the ground.

Democrat inherits worst recession ever from a Republican. Doesn't fix the Republican mess in less than 3 years.

Republican inherits a surplus and a booming economy from a Democrat. Runs it into the ground.

Democrat inherits worst recession ever from a Republican. Doesn't fix the Republican mess in less than 3 years.

Both are the fault of the democrats. Got it.

Bush didn't inherit a booming economy. He inherited an economy whose dot-com bubble had just burst and which was tanking toward inevitable recession. We're going to have to rename you to BigRevisionistChief.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

Bush didn't inherit a booming economy. He inherited an economy whose dot-com bubble had just burst and which was tanking toward inevitable recession. We're going to have to rename you to BigRevisionistChief.

The only thing Bush inherited from Clinton was 20 Saudi terrorists and Jamie Gorelick's wall.

Bush didn't inherit a booming economy. He inherited an economy whose dot-com bubble had just burst and which was tanking toward inevitable recession. We're going to have to rename you to BigRevisionistChief.

Typically Republican tactic. We are not doing "X". You are doing "X".

The history books are clear. Bush inherited a surplus of tax $'s and the dot come crash occurred in March 2000 with the collapse of the stocks on NASDAQ. Come on man, this is just plain facts.

It's not the facts that I'm having trouble with. It's your revisionist interpretation.

Dot-com collapse -> cratering economy -> recession Bush inherited.

So are you saying that during the 2000 campaign and the public speaking tour he undertook to sell the tax cut plan, B*sh's primary justification for the tax cut plan was the projected surplus, but that his primary justification changed by the time the first tax cuts were passed a few months into his Presidency?

Do you have any evidence of that?

It is undeniable what B*sh said on the campaign trail about the surplus and the tax cut. It is also undeniable that he kept making that same argument in the first months of his Presidency until the tax cuts passed.

I don't remember that B*sh ever changed his primary justification before the tax cuts were passed. However, if he did, is that not further proof that he was flying blind and taking an action based on ideology without regard for reality and consequences?

You should try to meet B*sh and have an extended discussion of his Presidency with him. He knows he messed some things up even if you never want to give him any credit for his mistakes.

The history books are clear. Bush inherited a surplus of tax $'s and the dot come crash occurred in March 2000 with the collapse of the stocks on NASDAQ. Come on man, this is just plain facts.

History books are NOT clear because correlation does not imply causation. Not when other factors are taken into account. You should know that's a science and statistics claim. Your claim is a logical fallacy.

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, just as Clinton inherited one from Bush Sr. This is the pattern the Austrian Economic school is constantly hammering home as being a result of Federal Reserve policies based on spending our way out of recessions. They call it the Business Cycle or the Boom-Bust cycle. It was going to happen with or without Bush in office or any tax cuts.

The dotcom boom was another artificial boom under Clinton in cahoots with Greenspan. Just as the 2008 and the "ownership society" under Bush was another artificial boom. The extra money put in circulation has to be spent somewhere. Real estate or stocks which creates overheated areas of speculation in the economy or cones. These eventually burst. They are not based on true value or increased production based on true market demands. They're inflated.

Tax cuts do not negatively impact economic activity by the players in the market which is the people. Govt spending simply crowds it out and that is a FACT. People who are anti-tax cuts are more concerned about govt growth which is just as much an ideology as those who believe in economic liberty ( growth ).

So are you saying that during the 2000 campaign and the public speaking tour he undertook to sell the tax cut plan, B*sh's primary justification for the tax cut plan was the projected surplus, but that his primary justification changed by the time the first tax cuts were passed a few months into his Presidency?

Do you have any evidence of that?

It is undeniable what B*sh said on the campaign trail about the surplus and the tax cut. It is also undeniable that he kept making that same argument in the first months of his Presidency until the tax cuts passed.

I don't remember that B*sh ever changed his primary justification before the tax cuts were passed. However, if he did, is that not further proof that he was flying blind and taking an action based on ideology without regard for reality and consequences?

You should try to meet B*sh and have an extended discussion of his Presidency with him. He knows he messed some things up even if you never want to give him any credit for his mistakes.

I'm saying that both motivations were factors in the first cut. Getting the economy going was the primary factor in the second cut.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

I am just utterly amazed any Lib wants to go there regarding Obama + Debt.

As I've pointed out numerous times, Libs themselves are confused as hell. Half say, "Who cares about the debt - we need jobs and stimulus!" The other half is unaware this is occurring, and you get threads like this claiming he's cut spending (or spending was terrible when he got there)

Libs are childish little POS who can't even formulate coherent arguments. This is just another example.